White Nationalism I: The Family Argument

While more mainstream supporters of Trump insist he is not a racist, white nationalists and their ilk have rejoiced in his victory. Regardless of what Trump believes, his rhetoric has carved out a safe space for what has been dubbed the “alt-right.” While this term is both broad and, perhaps, misused, it does serve to bundle together various groups that are perceived as racist and even neo-Nazi. I will not endeavor to break down the fine distinctions between these various groups, but will focus on the white nationalists. As the name indicates, they have an ideological commitment to creating a nation consisting solely of whites.

Since Nazis and other hate groups have advocated the same goal, it seems reasonable to regard white nationalists as racists and as a group based on hate. Not surprisingly, they often claim they are not racists and are not a hate group. They even advance some arguments in support of these claims. In this essay, I will consider the family argument.

While specific presentations of the family argument take various forms, the gist of the reasoning is that it is natural for people to prefer the company of their family members and that it is right to give precedence to one’s family. In their family analogy, the white nationalists take whites to be a family. This, as they see it, warrants having a white nation or, failing that, giving precedence to whites. Some white nationalists extend the family argument to other races, arguing that each race should act in the same way. Ideally, each race would have its own nation. This helps explain the apparently inconsistent claims advanced about Jews by white nationalists: they want the Jews to leave America for the whites, but they support Israel becoming a pure Jewish state.

The family analogy gains much of its appeal from human psychology: as a matter of fact, humans do generally prefer and give precedence to their own family members over others. This approach is also commonly used in solving ethical problems, such as who to save and how to distribute resources. For example, if a mother is given the choice between saving a stranger or her daughter from drowning, the intuitively right choice is her daughter. While the family approach has considerable appeal, there are some obvious concerns. One is whether whites constitute a family. Another is the extent to which being family morally warrants preference and precedence.

In the biological sense, a human family is made up of humans who are closely genetically related to each other. This is something that can be objectively tested; such as with a paternity test. In this regard, family identity is a matter of the genetic similarity (and origin) of the members. There is also the matter of distinguishing the family members from outsiders—this is done by focusing on the differences between the family members and others.

To argue that whites are a biological family requires establishing that whites are genetically related to each other. This is easy enough to do; all humans are genetically related because they are humans. But, the white nationalist wants whites to be an exclusive family. One obvious problem with this, especially in the United States, is that most whites are closely related to non-whites. To use one well known example, Thomas Jefferson has many descendants and they thus constitute a family. However, many of them are supposed to descended from him and Sally Hemings—thus would presumably not be regarded as white by white nationalists. While one might quibble about whether Heming and Jefferson had children, it is well-established that the genetic background of most “white” Americans will not be “pure white.” There is also the fact that the genetic background of many “non-white” Americans will include white ancestors. This will mean that the “white family” will include people who the white nationalists would regard as non-white. For example, Dick Cheney and Barack Obama are related and are thus family. As such, the biological family analogy breaks down in terms of the white nationalists’ approach.

While families are often defined biologically, there are also family members that are adopted and, of course, people marry into families they are (hopefully not) closely related to. As such, a family need not be genetically defined. This provides an alternative way to try to make whites into a family.

White nationalists could argue that the white family is not defined by white genes, but by a set of values or interests that constitute being white. That is, being white is a social construct analogous to a political party, religion, or club. While there is the obvious challenge of working out what would be the values and interests one must have to be part of the white club, this could in theory be worked out. After all, the white nationalists have set up their own little white club and they presumably have ways of deciding who gets to join. The obvious problem with this approach is that it does not seem to capture what the white nationalists want in terms of being white. After all, anyone could have those values and interests and thus be white. Also, there are many people who have white skin who do not share the interests or values of the white nationalists and would thus not be white on this approach.

The white nationalists could always go with the traditional approach of regarding as white anyone who looks white. Potential whites would presumably need to provide some proof that they do not have any non-whiteness in their background—there is, after all, a long history of people passing as whites in the United States. Since white nationalists tend to regard Jews as non-white, they would also need to sort that out in some way; after all, Jews can have very white skin. Presumably they can look to the Nazis for how to work this all out. There is also the concern about using technology to allow people to appear white, such as genetic modification. Presumably white nationalists would really need to worry about such things. After all, they would not want non-whites in their white paradise.

One obvious problem with this approach is that it is like accepting as family anyone who looks like you in some specified way. For example, embracing someone as a relative because they have a similar nose. This seems like a rather odd way to set a foundation for preference and precedence, but white nationalists presumably think in odd ways.

Given the above discussion, there seems to be no foundation for regarding whites as a family. As such, the white nationalist family analogy fails. As should be expected. I will close by saying that I am horrified by having to engage in arguments about white nationalism; such a morally abhorrent view should be recognized as such by anyone familiar with history and moral decency.

Reader Interactions

Comments

Being relatively unschooled in the philosophical arts(ie. dumb as pigshit), I have to try harder to make sure that I am not fooled by sophistry. One way I like to do that is to see if arguments like you have just made hold true generally, or at least see if the author will willingly apply them to analogous situations. Good for revealing hidden biases and agendas, don’t you think?

So, I have taken the liberty of replacing the word ‘white’ with ‘jew’ and’ jewish’ to see if your argument still holds.

Do you maintain that the jewish people 1/ do not exist 2/ have no right to exist 3/ should not exist 4/should not consider themselves to exist as a people? And if so, then what do you suggest be done about it?

If you believe that the jews should exist etc( points 1-4), then why shouldn’t whites be treated the same? If they shouldn’t be treated the same then please specify why exactly.

And are you really ‘horrified’ to have to argue against jewish nationalism and by extension do you really argue against other nationalisms, say, black or asian or native american? And if they are so ‘morally repugnant’ then what do you propose be done about them?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
While more mainstream supporters of Natanyahu insist he is not a racist, jewish nationalists and their ilk have rejoiced in his victory. Regardless of what Natanyahu believes, his rhetoric has carved out a safe space for what has been dubbed the “zionists.” While this term is both broad and, perhaps, misused, it does serve to bundle together various groups that are perceived as racist and even Nazi. I will not endeavor to break down the fine distinctions between these various groups, but will focus on the jewish nationalists. As the name indicates, they have an ideological commitment to creating a nation consisting solely of jews.

Since Nazis and other hate groups have advocated the same goal, it seems reasonable to regard jewish nationalists as racists and as a group based on hate. Not surprisingly, they often claim they are not racists and are not a hate group. They even advance some arguments in support of these claims. In this essay, I will consider the family argument.

While specific presentations of the family argument take various forms, the gist of the reasoning is that it is natural for people to prefer the company of their family members and that it is right to give precedence to one’s family. In their family analogy, the jewish nationalists take jews to be a family. This, as they see it, warrants having a jewish nation or, failing that, giving precedence to jews. Some jewish nationalists extend the family argument to other races, arguing that each race should act in the same way. Ideally, each race would have its own nation. This helps explain the apparently inconsistent claims advanced about whites by jewish nationalists: they want the arabs to leave Israel for the jews, but they support no country becoming a pure white state.

The family analogy gains much of its appeal from human psychology: as a matter of fact, humans do generally prefer and give precedence to their own family members over others. This approach is also commonly used in solving ethical problems, such as who to save and how to distribute resources. For example, if a mother is given the choice between saving a stranger or her daughter from drowning, the intuitively right choice is her daughter. While the family approach has considerable appeal, there are some obvious concerns. One is whether jews constitute a family. Another is the extent to which being family morally warrants preference and precedence.

In the biological sense, a human family is made up of humans who are closely genetically related to each other. This is something that can be objectively tested; such as with a paternity test. In this regard, family identity is a matter of the genetic similarity (and origin) of the members. There is also the matter of distinguishing the family members from outsiders—this is done by focusing on the differences between the family members and others.

To argue that jews are a biological family requires establishing that jews are genetically related to each other. This is easy enough to do; all humans are genetically related because they are humans. But, the jewish nationalist wants jews to be an exclusive family. One obvious problem with this, especially in the Middle East, is that most jews are closely related to non-jews.. It is well-established that the genetic background of most “jewish” Americans will not be “pure jewish.” There is also the fact that the genetic background of many “non-jewish” Americans will include jewish ancestors. This will mean that the “jewish family” will include people who the jewish nationalists would regard as non-jewish. As such, the biological family analogy breaks down in terms of the jewish nationalists’ approach.

A possible counter to this is to focus on specific jewish genes and argue that these are what define being jewish. One obvious point of focus are certain features(noses, ears, lips and a certain facial asymmetry)apparently the result of a single letter DNA mutation in the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome. As such, jewish nationalists could rally around this one letter and use that to define what it is to be jewish. This would certainly seem like an absurd foundation for preference and precedence; but perhaps the absurd would suffice for the jewish nationalists.

While families are often defined biologically, there are also family members that are adopted and, of course, people marry into families they are (hopefully not) closely related to. As such, a family need not be genetically defined. This provides an alternative way to try to make whites into a family.

Jewish nationalists could argue that the jewish family is not defined by white genes, but by a set of values or interests that constitute being jewish. That is, being jewish is a social construct analogous to a political party, religion, or club. While there is the obvious challenge of working out what would be the values and interests one must have to be part of the white club, this could in theory be worked out. After all, the jewish nationalists have set up their own little jewish club and they presumably have ways of deciding who gets to join. The obvious problem with this approach is that it does not seem to capture what the jewish nationalists want in terms of being jewish. After all, anyone could have those values and interests and thus be jewish. Also, there are many people who have certain features who do not share the interests or values of the jewish nationalists and would thus not be jewish on this approach.

The jewish nationalists could always go with the traditional approach of regarding as jewish anyone who looks jewish. Potential jewish would presumably need to provide some proof that they do not have any non-jewishness in their background—there is, after all, a long history of people passing as jewish in the United States. Since jewish nationalists tend to regard whites as non-jewish, they would also need to sort that out in some way; after all, Whites can have very dark skin. Presumably they can look to the Nazis for how to work this all out. There is also the concern about using technology to allow people to appear jewish, such as genetic modification. Presumably jewish nationalists would really need to worry about such things. After all, they would not want non-jewish in their jewish paradise.

One obvious problem with this approach is that it is like accepting as family anyone who looks like you in some specified way. For example, embracing someone as a relative because they have a similar nose. This seems like a rather odd way to set a foundation for preference and precedence, but jewish nationalists presumably think in odd ways.

Given the above discussion, there seems to be no foundation for regarding jewish as a family. As such, the jewish nationalist family analogy fails. As should be expected. I will close by saying that I am horrified by having to engage in arguments about jewish nationalism; such a morally abhorrent view should be recognized as such by anyone familiar with history and moral decency.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

To answer them, we need to sort out a mutually acceptable definition of “Jewish.” If is taken as a distinct biological race, I would say that it does not exist. There is, after all, just one existing species of humans. If it is taken as a cultural identity or religion, then yes, the Jewish people exist. Just as Catholics exist and Irish exist.

I do not claim that “whites” have no right to exist or should not exist. I’m a Lockean, so everyone gets the right to life on my view. I just don’t think that there is a meaningful or coherent “white” identity, given the incredible cultural, philosophical, ideological and theological differences among people who have the “white” skin color. But, there are groups that do have meaningful and coherent identities, such as Methodists, Shriners, Red Sox fans and fiscal conservatives.

Your concerns are certainly worth considering: if it is accepted that there can be groups based on “being a people”, then consistency requires that this principle be applied to all relevant groups. As your focus on Jews indicates, if someone accepts that the Jews are a distinct people or race, then that would certainly lay the foundation for arguing that there are other distinct peoples or races. One obvious problem with identity politics is that it so often ends up in a consistency mess: if there are identities, then there are identities and not just those that one likes.

………………………………………………………………….
“If is taken as a distinct biological race, I would say that it does not exist. ”
………………………………………………………………….

That seems to be the popular opinion these days, as to say anything else =career death + harassment(not a good option if one has mouths to feed), but what would you say to someone who says that all dogs are dogs but no one confuses a fox terrier with a doberman? Asians are a different breed to Africans with different attributes, susceptibilities and IQs.

………………………………………………………………………………………….
“If it is taken as a cultural identity or religion, then yes, the Jewish people exist. Just as Catholics exist and Irish exist.”
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Religion is only incidental to being a jew as jewish atheists are just as jewish as any other. And yes cultural identification does have something to do with it but is not the whole story. Halachically speaking the only requirement to be a jew is to be born of a jewish mother. So there is a genetic connection.

………………………………………………………………………………………..
“I do not claim that “whites” have no right to exist or should not exist. I’m a Lockean, so everyone gets the right to life on my view. ”
…………………………………………………………………………………………

I wasn’t talking about the right to life as such but the right to an identity. I substituted jew for white to up the ante a little but could just as easily used any other ethnicity/race.

…………………………………………………………………………………………..
“One obvious problem with identity politics is that it so often ends up in a consistency mess: if there are identities, then there are identities and not just those that one likes.”
……………………………………………………………………………………………
That is only if one tries too hard to pin it down exactly. It isn’t about liking(or disliking) anything, but rather this is how groups of humans organise themselves. There is a herd instinct, a friend/foe biological response, as survival is a team sport and we need to know who is on our team and who are we playing against for limited resources necessary for life itself. Current dogma (aimed only at whites) denies demographic realities.

The dog argument is certainly intriguing. In Charles Tanner’s 1932 sci-fi story “Tumithak of the Corridors” he imagines an earth conquered by aliens that have selectively bred humans for various purposes. One type is bred to be fat and delicious, another to function like hunting dogs. The free humans who live in the corridors (the remains of a massive shelter system) also diversified, with some descending into blindness and cannibalism in the ruins of their corridors.

Reading this story and combining it with claims about natural selection does provide an intuition argument that the human race could divide into distinct species with very different attributes. However, humans currently engage in random breeding and there are not human divisions analogous to the radical breeds of dogs, despite the feverish wishes of some people. But, given enough time and effort, those dreams could be made true. There is also sci-fi stories that envision just that-humans being bred or modified for specific functions. These are often cautionary tales.

I would suggest that the underlying impulse has been building for quite awhile. Lots of men(mainly younger) waking up to the fact that they were stiffed by the boomer generation, born into a screwed up decadent culture, with governments(of the western world)indebted to their eyeballs, lying non stop, being flooded with third worlders, subject to all sorts of feminist and pro ‘diversity’ propaganda and the thought police to enforce it, all in a surveillance state. So yes, there is discontent….and for it to be discounted because of their race and/or gender turns that discontent into anger. I wish them well…..

I’ll agree that the center/moderate right does not use that term and they generally steer clear of racism (and often condemn it). However, the alt-right has brought the term into play-it seems to be a cover/code word for white supremacy.

While the alt-right is intentionally vaguely defined, it seems to be a threat to values held by the left (obviously) and the center right.

People do get irritated sometimes when they have to change their behavior because of an influx of immigrants. For example, people have been told that it is not OK to fly the American flag because it might provoke the Mexican immigrants. I can see why people would get angry about this, but I would not ascribe the anger to racism as many on the left do.

I’m sure that there are some folks who say such things (for any stupid thing to say, there is probably a someone who says that thing); but is that a widespread thing or a matter of general policy? If it is a real thing, then it is wrong. People have the right to fly the flag of their country in their country. As with art that offends people the solution is usually to just not look at it if you do not like it.

200 or so (I’m guessing this was rounded up) “white nationalists” meet in DC and the NYT, et al loses its sh*t over it as if that’s a number to be taken seriously. Compare 7,600 people attended BronyCon this year:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BronyCon

But of course Bronys aren’t violent…yet 😉 Guilt by association is still a fallacy, is it not? Appropos of nothing, Mike, along with most of the MSM, missed the meetings of these racist and otherwise oppressive organizations as well. Perhaps Mike would endeavor to break down the fine distinctions between The Black Panther Party, CPUSA, BLM, etc. etc. etc.

As for I will close by saying that I am horrified by having to engage in arguments about white nationalism; such a morally abhorrent view should be recognized as such by anyone familiar with history and moral decency. Who really is forcing you to? You are choosing to do this because you get juiced on feelings of moral superiority and because you want to play guilt-by-association by tying not just Trump…let’s not kid ourselves as you do this in general in these sort of arguments…but anyone on the right to fascism. When you get flabbergasted by seeing the left starting to lose its grip in the so-called court of popular opinion, you resort to this sort of name calling. And Mike teaches ethics. Perhaps that is something to be more horrified about.

Prediction: Expect the anti-Trump press to continue asking Trump surrogates this question: “Why do you think the KKK and white nationalists support Trump?”

The question makes sense if you don’t think about it for too long. But once you realize that Trump has repeatedly and publicly disavowed those groups, you have to hallucinate extra-hard to make the racist narrative work. That’s where the “top-secret-racist-dog-whistle” comes in. You need a theory to explain why the supposed Racist-in-Chief keeps disavowing racists. How does that make any sense?

This is where cognitive dissonance comes in. In order to explain Trump’s disavowal of White Nationalists and the KKK while holding onto the hallucination that Trump is a dangerous monster, you have to hallucinate that he is playing a clever game of pretending to be against racists while secretly planning to purge the earth of all non-orange people.

That feels unlikely to me. I think Trump just wants to do a good job for the country, thereby bringing money and glory to his family name. And he won’t get any of that by being a racist monster. He only gets that happy ending by being pragmatic and flexible, exactly as we observe him now to be.

The KKK, as you note, is now insignificant. However, the question remains about the extent of white nationalism. Are they just a small number of fringe loonbats who spam social media and have no real relevance beyond being boogeymen for the spooked left? Or is there something there for real?

2/3 of the US, nearly 200 million Americans are white. The last significant war between white, European non-Muslims ended over 70 years ago. The last KKK murder was back in 1981, over 30 years ago. Minor strife here and there that is repudiated by the vast majority of whites. 200 extremists gather to spew their hate, Mike and his media/leftist allies wet their pants in fear. Or more likely, pretend to. 1% of the US is Muslim, roughly 3 million people. A few of them kill dozens, hundreds of Americans and Europeans. The Muslim world is awash in violence, in conflict not just with non-Muslims but within the various sects. Muslims here in the US and elsewhere in the west celebrate and/or endorse these killings. Mike and his leftist allies dismiss it as statistical anomalies, not an “existential threat”.

And note a key player in crippling the Klan back in the 1980s was Jeff Sessions, whom Trump is considering as AG. Yet Sessions is denounced as a racist, etc.

Excellent point. We are not to worry about terrorism because it is “statistically insignificant,” but we are supposed to worry about the KKK which used to have millions of members but is now down to 5000.

I don’t claim that there should be no worry about terrorism. There is a non-zero chance of terrorism in the US. However, the worry needs to be proportional to the probability and the severity.

If the white nationalism movement is a tiny loonbat fringe, shouting “Heil Trump” in their parents’ basements and only occasionally spawning someone who engages in violence, then our level of concern should be proportionate to that threat.

I would suggest that although actual numbers may be small(how small exactly is anyone’s guess)if the chattering classes and other enforcers of our ruling dogma sniff *any* potential challenge to current sacred cows, they panic.

The game is easy to spot, all nationalisms(celebrating one’s own culture and history and desiring its continuance) whether it be black, asian, jewish or whatever are allowed, even celebrated. Any suggestion that whites have the same right is met with denunciations and mass triggerings. What does that say?

Ronster, you bring up a very important point. Historically, the US has embraced a “melting pot” in which immigrants were pressured to adapt to the prevailing culture. Over the past couple of decades, however, the melting pot has morphed into the “mosaic” in which immigrants are encouraged to remain culturally separate.

The people (read Democrats) who support the mosaic are terribly ignorant of history. The only way a multiethnic society like the US can thrive is via the melting pot. The mosaic model will devolve into tribal warfare.

Oz is the same in regards to the melting pot idea and its morphing into a ‘multicult/diversity is strength’ prevailing dogma.

Melting pots only work when there is a massively dominant culture, say >95% which forces assimilation. Migrants then are mostly in contact with the dominant culture and adjust, quickly( or slowly), and if not them so much then their kids. The other proviso is that the migrants are racially and culturally similar. Therefore in Oz(and I assume the US and Canada too) when nearly all migrants were European, whether Italians, Greeks, Germans, Dutch, Yugos or whatever, they were on the same page so to speak, culturally and despite differences had more in common with each other and existing Aussies.

Now with totally culturally dissimilar mass migration enforced by our elites(doubt that then answer why is it happening when even the village idiot could tell you that it is bound to end in long term unfixable disaster) the melting pot is broken and things are going tribal. Then it all turns shitshaped as people lose trust in institutions that were once seen as above politics, like law. Breakdown of social glue, then never ending conflict thereafter.

The Dems in the US and Labor here are leftist parties feeding on (and in turn feeding) resentment. Once it was class resentment, now it is racial. They cannot help themselves as long as it is resentment…….

So to your comment about the lack of discussion re race on various sites like Instapundit, Hot Air, Power Line, etc. Expect it to become a talked about topic in the future as the spell is broken. There is a concept called ‘crystallization of public opinion’ so named by Edward Bernays,( an early master of propaganda and public relations) where the penny drops on the public as a whole, a phase change, IOW. Often it is just more manipulation of the public, but sometimes is a spontaneous change in mass opinion.

One point that is often confused in these discussions is about the individual versus the group. That if I think that mass third world immigration is a bad idea then I must hate them individually….not so though the left portrays it that way for rhetorical purposes. The concept of ‘hate’ is usually just leftish projection.

It is easy to be race neutral when there is one overwhelmingly dominant race or culture and everyone has a full belly. When times are less good and the population is divided 70-30 or 60-20-20 etc and things get tribal then it gets all very interesting.

‘Balkanization’ is called that for a reason…think ongoing shitfights over centuries. Diversity+numbers(my addition to the equation)+proximity=conflict. Everywhere you look it is the same. The idea of being American(or Australian or Canadian or Kiwi etc) only works when everyone is pretty much the same as regards attitudes and values already. Otherwise their first identification is black, chinese, moslem etc and you end up with a hyphenated population with no loyalty to the ideals of the society, only the goodies that come with it.